This plucky grasshopper and his curious beetle-like chum (at 2 o'clock from him) were found crawling over the combine today as we finished. They had made it out of the crop alive - unlike, I suspect, many of their companions down at ground level.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good morning, Britain.
An absolue gem this morning on ITV, as Piers Morgan takes on Liz Jones on veganism, and uses the wheat-production argument fairly compr...
-
The very rock of the Moral High Ground occupied by the vegetarian/vegan movement is the claim that their diet doesn't kill animals. From...
-
This little fellow is a bruchid beetle. He and ten billion on his closest chums got into my bean crop and make a right mess of it. They ... -
An absolue gem this morning on ITV, as Piers Morgan takes on Liz Jones on veganism, and uses the wheat-production argument fairly compr...
In your article, Flindt on Friday: Here’s how to argue with vegans (23rd February 2018), in Farmers Weekly, you said you were going to take on vegans and vegetarians by cataloguing with pictures all the animals that die for their bread in one year. You said. “A year on an acre of arable land is a bloodbath. It starts in the autumn, with the cultivations: rats, worms, mice… And harvest? Ugh! The rabbit with its back broken by the combine, the hare with half its head sheared off. The list is endless. I’ve decided to try and make that list. In the course of the upcoming arable year, I’m going to document the carnage. I’m going to keep the camera handy, and every time I kill a poor innocent animal in the course of growing wheat, I’m going to take a picture, and document that death. I’ll pester my agronomist and my vet, and try to get gruesome and gory post-mortem details.”
ReplyDeleteHere’s a link to your article - http://bit.ly/2QjPKlK
But here we are at the end of the year in September, and all you’ve shown are a few photographs of worms and other bugs. Okay, they’re animals, but where are all those rabbits with broken backs you promised, the rats, hares? You said, “The list is endless.” You said you was going to present the evidence of all these deaths to your vet “to get gruesome and gory post-mortem details.” You even asked fellow arable farmers to join you in this mission. You asked them to send you their own pictures of the deaths of animals killed and discarded, and still you’ve provided nothing.
Your failure to show the evidence of all this alleged carnage has produced the opposite effect of what you set out to achieve. You’ve shown that no rabbits, hares, rats or any creatures other than bugs are killed during the harvest of bread in one year.
Hi Glen, thanks for dropping by - I'm very honoured that you've been monitoring my site so closely! Anyway, a couple of points: yes, my harvest posts have been woefully short, not least because the wildlife quota seemed very low this year. I think the long dry spell here cleared out much of it. But fear not: the cultivation/insecticide season is upon us, and the carnage will kick off again soon! You seem to think that I meant that 'the year' is only harvest - not at all; it's a whole year. Finally, and most importantly, I really appreciate your acknowledgment that the bugs and worms are indeed animals, and are dying in the course of wheat production; they are dead for your bread. Thanks for that. Cheers. Charlie.
ReplyDeleteYou seem highly motivated to bring about this carnage to make your argument against the vegetarians and vegans more successful, the reason being, the more animals you kill during the production of their food the stronger your argument against them will be. I believe this is a poor strategy bound to fail for several reasons. Foremost is your motivation to provide this evidence which leaves you open to the charge of planting it. If your argument against our customers relies solely on your photographic evidence, who’s to say you didn’t in fact buy or breed these animals, kill them and then strategically arrange them before taking pictures of them to strengthen your argument?
DeleteSecondly, vegans and vegetarians are our customers, and they aren’t as stupid as you would have everyone believe. They know what pesticides are and what they do. They understand only too well that the machinery farmers use destroys animals’ habitats. To make the claim that they say no animals die for their food, only to then destroy it with dubious photographs from a farmer with a high motivation to produce that evidence, is a strawman argument. What you’re attempting to do is misrepresent their argument or position and then thwack it into the ground; a classic strawman argument. They aren’t daft. They and the audience you’re trying to reach will quickly see straight through your attempt and judge it weak and desperate.
The only two things this silly crusade against our customers is going to show vegetarians is that they’re ignorant of the deaths accrued during the production of their food or maybe hypocrites. Big deal! You won’t weaken their argument against farmers who “murder” animals – you’ll only strengthen it by including these extra deaths you’re trying so desperately to include. What you’re effectively doing is showing our customers that the bread they eat is made up of contaminated wheat from the untold millions of animals you gleefully slaughter during its production. Can’t you see how counter-productive this whole exercise is?
Hello again, Glen. Nice to see you back. You make a lot of points, and I'll do my best to answer them.
ReplyDelete1. I am not "bringing about this carnage". I am reporting what happens in an arable field.
2. I am indeed keen to make my argument against those vegans/vegetarians who metaphorically and literally wear the 'meat is murder' T-shirt, and use that philosophical standpoint to abuse/intimidate/vandalise anything to do with the meat-eating industry. Of course not all v/vs do that, but there is a significant number who do. My blog is aimed at them.
3. There is no motivation to 'kill more animals' in the arable year. One dead rat at the grain store is enough to dispel the claim that 'no animals die for our v/v diet' a claim made by those v/v who believe 'meat is murder'.
4. As for the suggestion that I am am buying/breeding animals, killing them and 'strategically arranging them'. Really? I mean, REALLY? with knobs on. I know I'm talented, but weaving a fake spiders' web in the wheat heads? Hand-lacing the furrows with worms to attract seagulls? Really?
5. Yes, you're right: many v/vs do indeed know of the pesticide use and the animals deaths in the field. But there is a significant proportion who don't. I would question your claim that v/vs don't make the claim that animals don't die for their food. It's usually the very first line of their argument. Back to the 'meat is murder' slogan. You can't claim/campaign on that ticket if the small print says 'and so is the v/v diet'! The argument becomes somewhat neutered.
5. You've got the point of my 'silly campaign' absolutely right, though. Well done. It is indeed to show that they are ignorant of the deaths, and if they DO know and still shout about the animals deaths in meat-eating, then they are indeed hypocrites. For you, it's no big deal. For the butchers, and the livestock farms, and the pig units, and the markets,and everyone else who has suffered abuse or vandalism at the hands of militant vegans/vegetarians (who believe 'meat is murder', and therefore feel some moral justification), it's a slightly bigger deal.
6. Accusing me of 'gleefully' slaughtering animals. First, this is nonsense. Second: is that not a strawman argument?
7. Finally, I don't believe it's counter-productive at all. It's an argument that has gained traction more and more over the last couple of years. So much so that v/vs are resorting to 'insects don't feel pain' and 'we should all eat lab meat' as lines of debate. I have also used it at many gatherings, and put many (mostly teenage) v/vs gently right on their belief that their diet does not involve animal deaths. These days, I can point them straight my silly little blog!
Cheers,
Charlie.
Thanks for getting back to me on all the points I made and for numbering your responses to make them easier for me to refer to.
DeleteIf we look at #1, it was you who described the scenes surrounding the wheat production in your fields as carnage, and so I don’t think it’s inaccurate to say that you do bring it about.
Regarding #2, if your blog is aimed at those who shout ‘meat is murder’ to show them that their food, wheat, also has an association with animal deaths, what are you hoping to achieve apart from highlighting the fact that farmers kill even more animals than previously believed?
Regarding #3, if, as you claim, just “one dead rat at the grain store is enough to dispel the claim that 'no animals die for our v/v diet'” why are you going to such great lengths to hopefully document hundreds of deaths, even thousands, with photographic evidence and the promise to “… pester my agronomist and my vet, and try to get gruesome and gory post-mortem details.” This contradiction shows beyond any doubt that your intention isn’t merely to draw the vegetarian’s attention to the fact that animals die during the production of their bread; it’s to hopefully bring about a situation where they’re made to appear responsible for the deaths you cause, and that these deaths exceed the deaths brought about by livestock farming and are more gruesome. I can’t see any other plausible reason for inflating these numbers and trying to promote them as being more gruesome by including “gory post-mortem details” from your vet. What you’re hoping for are the images of thousands of gruesome animal deaths with all their gory details, not just one dead rat to support your argument.
Regarding #4, as mentioned before in my earlier response, any and all so-called evidence you might choose to bring forward is merely anecdotal from someone whose intent is to put forward a situation where the vegetarian who buys bread causes as much if not more animal deaths than the customer who buys meat. So yes, motivated to support this argument and make this blog work, it’s highly likely that the evidence supporting it has been sexed up or even fabricated. It would be totally irresponsible to accept it as admissible evidence now that the motive behind it has been revealed in #3. Surely, someone who describes himself as talented in #4 would know this before someone far more talented had to come along and point that out to you.
Regarding #5, yes, many vegetarians fully acknowledge the unfortunate fact that the collateral deaths of animals can be found during the production of agriculture, including wheat. But to make your opposition to their ‘meat is murder’ argument an honest one made in good faith you must also acknowledge another fact, that the animals they’re referring to are livestock animals, not bugs, or even hares.
I’ve left your remaining points because I don’t think they add or take anything away from the discussion, but if you believe something in them is vital to it please tell me and I’ll be happy to address them.
Hello again, Glen.
ReplyDelete1. I wasn't questioning the word 'carnage'; I was questioning your suggestion that I was 'bringing it about' as if it were some deliberate act. I'm not. The carnage happens as part of a normal arable year.
2. What I'm hoping to do is show to those who fervently believe that no deaths are involved in their v/v diet that their belief is misplaced. Not all v/v believe this, but many do, and some feel their belief justifies violence and abuse against meat eaters and producers.
3. Perhaps I should have said that one rat 'would be enough'. It would make for a fairly short blog, though. Because I see so many deaths during the arable year, I though it would be a better project to try and record as many as possible to support No 2. I don't buy your 'beyond any doubt' conclusion as to what I'm trying to do - that's nonsense. See 2 (again). I'm not inflating numbers. I'm trying to report them as I see them. The accusation that I'm inflating numbers isn't quite as odd as your claim that I'm buying/breeding/killing/placing animals, but it's not far off.
4. 'It's highly likely' that my evidence is fabricated? Er, no. As I said before: I couldn't make that spiders web. I didn't import that toad. I didn't hand kill the slugs in the title picture. I'm a bit busy for that sort of nonsense. All I'm doing is reporting the deaths where I can, and providing the photographic evidence where I can. I leap out of the tractor/combine, take a pic, have a quick pee, maybe have a swig of tea from my flask, and then crack on. It's as simple as that. No fabrication, no exaggeration, just an occasional update on the goings-on of an English arable farm. I'll agree that the prose can be a bit flowery.....
5. Not sure I quite get your point here: are you saying that 'livestock animals' are somehow different, when it comes to the morality of killing them, to 'bugs and even hares'? There are 'animals' and then there are, er, other 'animals'? Hmmmm - dodgy ground there, old chum!
To recap:
A. Some vegans/vegatarians believe their diet involves no animals deaths.
B. Some of those v/vs feel that their belief justifies violence/abuse against meat eaters/producers.
C. It would be nice if they somehow realised the fallacy of their argument, and thereby lost the philosophical justification for the violence/abuse.
D. I am trying to show, using occasional reports from my arable fields, that the production of arable crops, esp. wheat, involves the deaths of many animals. I'm hoping that I can perhaps thereby bring about an occasional outbreak of 'C'!
Ta daaah! It really is that simple.
Best wishes, Charlie
You cannot in all seriousness try to distance yourself from the carnage (your description) you bring about during the production of wheat when it’s you who applies the pesticides and you who uses the heavy machinery which destroys their habitat. Of course it’s a deliberate act. You’re not killing them with pesticides unintentionally. You cannot avoid responsibility for the carnage you cause by saying it’s just something that happens as part of a normal arable year. Your efforts to distance yourself from the collateral deaths you cause brings up the question; why? Why are you trying to avoid blame for the deliberate carnage you intentionally bring about? If, like you concede, just one rat is all that’s required to show your vegetarian customers that animals die for their food too, you would not go to all this trouble in documenting the many hundreds or thousands and include all the “gory post-mortem details” from your vet, so something else must be driving you to do that, and it isn’t just to make this a more interesting blog, like you suggest. No, I believe there has to be something more than that behind your efforts to make this carnage you cause gorier and more numerous. So far, though, despite the promise of a great many rabbits and hares, etc., you’ve documented very little; just a few bugs, in fact. The whole effort has backfired on you spectacularly, proving to all your readers of this little blog that not many of these warm-bloodied animals are killed during the production of wheat. It was doomed to fail anyway, because, like I said before, any and all so-called evidence you might choose to bring forward is merely anecdotal from someone whose intent is to put forward a situation where the vegetarian who buys bread causes as much if not more animal deaths than the customer who buys meat. So yes, motivated to support this argument and make this blog work, it’s highly likely that the evidence supporting it has been sexed up or even fabricated. It would be totally irresponsible to accept it as admissible evidence. And no, I’m not talking about spinning cobwebs with your bare hands and taking pictures of them, like you jokingly suggested in your reply; I’m talking about buying or breeding field animals to slaughter and then place strategically around like they’ve been chopped up by farm machinery before taking pictures and adding them to your gallery here. I think you knew that. So, to wrap up, your efforts here have been counterproductive in numerous ways. Your attempts to switch the argument around by focussing on the collateral deaths you cause strengthens the vegetarian’s position and weakens the position you’re already trying to run from; namely, a murderer of domestic farm animals and now, thanks to your input, a murderer of wild animals.
ReplyDeleteRight, I think we're getting somewhere. There I was thinking you were of farming stock, talking of 'our customers' - but now that you're flinging about the cliched 'murderer' line, I think we both know where you're coming from. Bit of shame, really. Anyway, you're very welcome to come and sit in moi tractorrr when I'm ploughing, and I'll show you lots of dead and dying animals - and all of them untouched by me.
ReplyDeleteI can’t assure you I am from a long line of farmers and farm the same land my great grandfather farmed without giving away the name and location of my family’s farm on an open forum, but why should that stop you from responding to the points I’m putting to you anyway? In #2 you wrote, “I am indeed keen to make my argument against those vegans/vegetarians who metaphorically and literally wear the 'meat is murder' T-shirt”, so let’s suppose for the sake of argument that I am exactly that slogan-wearing vegetarian you describe. Why are you now backing off from defending your position against me, from that very type of person you claim to be targeting in this blog? There’s a lot of stuff you’ve backed away from here, and if you want to support your argument and defend your position against our vegetarian customers who shout, “Meat is murder” I suggest you address the points I’m putting to you in a clear and civilised way, especially if you want to say to those slogan-wearing vegetarians, “See my blog, pal.” Because what they’re going to see is a farmer hell-bent on running away from a fellow farmer who’s trying to tell him he needs far more than just anecdotal evidence to support his claim that farming wheat is associated with the carnage of sliced, diced and poisoned animals. They’ll see that your motivation to make these deaths as numerous and as gory as possible by including “gory post-mortem details” from your vet makes this anecdotal evidence even more difficult to be taken as fact. They’ll see that every point you’ve tried to make has clattered to the floor because it does have the legs to hold it up. So, come on Charlie, stop clowning around and get to work. You’ve got a lot of work to do and we’re only just getting started.
Delete